- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DOJ will not prosecute AG Garland for contempt of Congress
Posted on 6/14/24 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 6/14/24 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Ok? What does that have to do with this thread?
You brought up what previous DOJs have done in the past. I’m simply pointing out the DOJ doesn’t mind “breaking history to prosecute.”
Was that too hard to follow what it has to do with this thread, when you introduced the concept…
1
Posted on 6/14/24 at 2:59 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Except when their names are Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon working for the Trump administration.
Navarro's was litigated literally up to the Supreme Court
Bannon was a private citizen
Posted on 6/14/24 at 2:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Trump did not claim executive privilege over the documents in those cases, and both morons refused to appear and testify in any event.
Trump was not capable of claiming executive privilege because he was not president at the time.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Navarro's was litigated literally up to the Supreme Court
There's the problem. It did not go to SCOTUS. It stayed in the Democrat Party DC Circuit.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:01 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Trump was not capable of claiming executive privilege because he was not president at the time.
Therefore you have your answer.
Was there a claim of executive privilege? No. And former POTUS's can, in fact, assert the privilege--just not over the objection of the current POTUS.
Trump's own attorney told Bannon's lawyer that there was not going to be a privilege claim, and he chose to take the stupid "advice of counsel" defense anyway.
This post was edited on 6/14/24 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:02 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
You brought up what previous DOJs have done in the past.
Right. In situations that are identical to the subject of the thread.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:03 pm to IT_Dawg
Good, maybe the GOP will stop its witch hunts to get even for Trump and start serving the people.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Navarro's was litigated literally up to the Supreme Court
No, it did not go before the Supreme Court. He appealed to them to stay his imprisonment while his appeals were ongoing, which they denied
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:03 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Therefore you have your answer.
Was there a claim of executive privilege? No.
Trump's own attorney told Bannon's lawyer that there was not going to be a privilege claim, and he chose to take the stupid "advice of counsel" defense anyway.
It seems that ex presidents should have the power to claim privilege for situations that occurred during their presidency.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:04 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
Video Interview of Biden is soooo friggin bad, Garland won’t provide it to CONGRESS, who has the right to see it.
This is ALWAYS the case when the GOPe gives away all leverage with every dem budget that they pass.
Stop voting establishment uni-party.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:04 pm to BuckI
quote:
Good, maybe the GOP will stop its witch hunts to get even for Trump and start serving the people.
I think it serves the people very well to see what their President did during an interview….
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:04 pm to GumboPot
quote:
It seems that ex presidents should have the power to claim privilege for situations that occurred during their presidency.
The privilege belongs to the POTUS. Former President's can assert the privilege, but it isn't going to stick if the current POTUS disagrees.
This post was edited on 6/14/24 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Right. In situations that are identical to the subject of the thread.
And I pointed out that the DOJ in their history hadn’t done something, but finally decided to recently. So it’s relevant to the BS you brought up.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:07 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
So it’s relevant to the BS you brought up.
Pointing out that this action is directly in line with all previous instances of this situation is BS?
This post was edited on 6/14/24 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:07 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
no one was above the law
(D)ifferent
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:08 pm to jrobic4
quote:
(D)ifferent
Except in this instance, its not.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:13 pm to IT_Dawg
Can you not appoint a special prosecutor? That is what they are for, when there is a DOJ conflict like this.
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are you sure this isn’t a lie?
Navarro's was litigated literally up to the Supreme Court
Posted on 6/14/24 at 3:43 pm to Indefatigable
quote:The thing they can do is have the sergeant at arms of Congress arrest Merrick Garland. They won’t though. The Republicans in Congress are ok with a few hundred Trump supporters going to jail.
No. Congress has no ability to vacate DOJ charges.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News